Edward M. Karkar v. Citicorp Citibank N.A. And Citicorp Trust N.A.

38 F.3d 1218 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Edward M. KARKAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITICORP; Citibank N.A.; and Citicorp Trust N.A., Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 92-15353, 92-16047. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 15, 1994. Decided Oct. 18, 1994. 1 Before: HUG and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and REAL, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Defendants in the trial court, CITIBANK AND CITICORP TRUST, N.A., ("Appellants") appeal from the judgment on a unanimous jury verdict in favor of plaintiff EDWARD M. KARKAR ("Karkar"), finding that Appellants had breached their investment agreement with Karkar and awarding $850,000 for damages resulting from the breach. Appellants also appeal the district court's grant of attorneys' fees to Karkar under English law. Appellants also contend that, if English law applies justifying the award of attorneys' fees, Citicorp and Citicorp Trust are entitled to attorneys' fees as prevailing…